NY Times and Peterson

They say a good writer reveals his/her characters and a bad writer reveals him/her self.

The NY Times Peterson piece reveals more about the writer than Peterson himself. She purposefully doesn't define what he means by "enforced monogamy." Now, I don't actually know what he means, but I know what he doesn't mean - and that is some type of slave arrangement for monogamous marriage -- and of course, this is what she implies. All he means, I'm sure, is the social system we actually already have, where you - socially speaking - aren't supposed to sleep with other people's husbands and wives.

The most telling moment is when she laughs at him when he ponders: what about the 50% of men who "fail" by not procreating? (SIDE BAR: I don't think I'd characterize all men (or women) who don't procreate as "failures." Modern society is a wee bit more complicated than that. For example - are men who breed a lot of children - Shawn Kemp-like, but do nothing in terms of raising them, successes? That seems like a strange bar. Not to mention biology is only one arena of human endeavor. Are tyrants with a lot of children "successful?" Is Socrates not because he had no children? Etc)

To me the most telling moment was when the writer reveals, in her laugh, her utter contempt for the "loser." This is the equivalent of a high school dude laughing a fat girl. And it tells you everything about where she is coming from and who she is that she feels no sympathy for the 50% of men who struggle to find emotional and sexual connection in their lives. But beyond whether she CARES about these people, she should very much care what the impact of so many "unsuccessful" men could have on society. What happens to these guys? I'll tell you what - depression, excessive risk taking, and fantasies of violence. Now maybe we can solve those things with video games, pizza, porn, and sports, but I wouldn't but all my eggs on those potential solutions.